The Arizona governor is mulling legislation that, if signed, would allow businessowners to refuse service to gay customers. The proposal is ostensibly to protect freedom of religion.

In other words, if the owner's god and religion forbid homosexuality, the owner would not have to do business with gays.

So one question for any supporter of the legislation is this: where in your Koran or Bible does your god forbid followers from selling products to homosexuals?

My understanding is that these gods do not prohibit believers from operating businesses that sell products and services to homosexuals, but if that's not the case, please point out the relevant text.

If there's no order from the gods to followers to abstain from selling products and services to gays, this issue cannot be about protecting freedom of religion, but is rather about protecting the right to be bigots.(Note: the working assumption here is that if you are a businessperson and you don't want to sell lunches to black people or cakes to gay people or cars to Christians or music boxes to Muslims, you're a bigot.)

The bottom-line question: Do Americans have the right to be bigots? Should government force businessowners to sell products and services to gays or blacks or Muslims or liberals or Christians or Mormons or women (or any other group) if the owners simply prefer not to do business with them?

"Nick what I meant is that how others live is really none of my business unless how they live causes me and other taxpayers to have to pay for their lifestyle."

I disagree. If a neighbor decides that the way they want to live is to make constant disturbing noises, odors, or dust, etc, which affects others and their property nearby then that becomes the business of the affected; even though they are not expected to pay for the offensive lifestyle.

"As in anything in life - people are free to do whatever they wish - until it impacts others. At the point the first groups activities impinge on others the others have some rights to tell the first folks how to live."

Now THERE ya go. THAT's how it is supposed to be. One individual's rights end when they begin to impact another's life.

I don't see where the basic act of being homosexual or having a homosexual marriage does that.

>>Nick not all of them do that. I tend to think ( no data really) that most of them just want to raise their kids and do well like the rest of us.<<

No doubt that "not all of them do that". In most instances there are a few bad apples or poor examples that make people think it's endemic of these people as a whole. That's why it's bad to generalize.

>>Hey Nick does expecting people to be adults and take care of their obligations make me a bigot?????<<

Has anyone claimed that it does? I haven't seen anything in this thread or any other to indicate that.

Nick not all of them do that. I tend to think ( no data really) that most of them just want to raise their kids and do well like the rest of us.

But do you feel the same way about the folks who go around and have multiple kids by multiple parents and never get married? That is becoming endemic I have heard in the big cities. We also have the cases of parents splitting up and doing it multiple times (or even just once ) but not being responsible to raise the kids.

All part of the same problem - people expecting others to take care of their responsibilities.

I was raised differently - an adult balances freedom to live in peace by accepting the responsibility to redeem his or her obligations.

Hey Nick does expecting people to be adults and take care of their obligations make me a bigot?????

>>I dont care if two folks of the same gender get joined in a civil or church ceremony. But if they wish to be treated equally under the law s as a "standard" marriage then they have to be equally bound to the same laws. That is all I said and all I meant.<<

That's fine. But when you wrote "...dont expect others to fund your wishes" it sure seemed like you meant something more.

As for the polygamists, I agree. They should not be having kids with multiple "wives" and then expect everyone else to pay for them just because their "wives" are considered single moms.

Awwwww btc that aint very nice now is it? What happened to your sweet gentle disposition we all like?

Nick what I meant is that how others live is really none of my business unless how they live causes me and other taxpayers to have to pay for their lifestyle. It means just that and nothing more.

I dont care if two folks of the same gender get joined in a civil or church ceremony. But if they wish to be treated equally under the laws as a "standard" marriage then they have to be equally bound to the same laws. That is all I said and all I meant.

There are other lifestyles that I object to because they cause other people to have to fund them. I mentioned one (polygamy) where a man has multiple wives but legally is only responsible for the one. So the kids of the others he is "spiritually married to" qualify for government help as children with no father or whatever. Some of these folks believe that is just fine - they call it bleeding the beast.

In a similar mode I object to the idea of a man fathering multiple kids by multiple women who he has no legal obligations to at all but the rest of us will be responsible to pay for the kids. That is wrong both morally and from a societal viewpoint IMHO.

I also object to the serial marriages where people get married and then divorced and the taxpayer ends up paying for the kids.

I dont object to any form of marriage that folks want - just as long as it ends up doing what marriage is supposed to do - raise whatever kids come along and do a good job of it while providing for the security and happiness of the participants.

As in anything in life - people are free to do whatever they wish - until it impacts others. At the point the first groups activities impinge on others the others have some rights to tell the first folks how to live.

Nick, when he has no retort or comeback, fly always goes for "read the entire link and get back to me" as a delay or just to ignore your point all together. Sad, really sad these cons become so transparent so quickly.

>>Nick - read the WHOLE post then come on back and we can discuss it if you wish.<<

That's nonsense. You think that because I didn't quote "the WHOLE post" it means I didn't read it? You're taking what some polygamous families are doing and implying that gay couples are or may be doing the same thing. So, do you have any evidence that backs up your accusation?

>> I literally is none of my business ----- until they start causing the government to expend taxes to deal with their lifestyle....Likewise two folks of the same gender. Do what you want but dont expect others to fund your wishes. If yo desire to get married - fine by me - just obey all the same rules as everyone else in terms of responsibilities.<<

So, flyboy, I was unaware that gay couples are "causing the government to expend taxes to deal with their lifestyle" at a higher rate than we straight couples, that they are trying to get us to "fund (their) wishes", or that they are not "obey[ing] all the same rules as everyone else in terms of responsibilities." Is there any evidence that they are doing these things that you imply?

"Bachmann's comments sound a lot like the last whiny gasps of the rapidly-dying anti-gay marriage movement."

I expect that the anti-same-sex marriage movement will die substantially slower than some believe. Those with that view may very well go to their graves embracing that view -- just as many ardent cigarette smokers went to their graves denying there was any link between smoking and serious health problems.

Religious convictions tend not to change swiftly. But that doesn't mean that following generations will buy into the beliefs of their elders in large numbers.

btc - I am shocked - shocked I tell you. That you would resort to calling fellow posters names.

Personally I really dont care who gets married to who and what they do in private. I literally is none of my business ----- until they start causing the government to expend taxes to deal with their lifestyle.

Here in Utah there are a fair number of Polyg families. Thats their business - but I expect them to pay for their kids just like all families should. However some of them try (and some succeed) to try to get govt aid based on the unwed mother idea. That I object to - they are your kids - you take responsibility and take care of them yourself.

Likewise two folks of the same gender. Do what you want but dont expect others to fund your wishes. If yo desire to get married - fine by me - just obey all the same rules as everyone else in terms of responsibilities.

. It's not being a bigot to be against 'homosexuality addiction marriage'... or against any other addictions... or against murderers...

. And, not "everyone is in favor of homosexuality addiction 'marriages' "... in fact, 30 states, well over 1/2, have constitutional amendments, most are recently passed, banning homosexuality addiction 'marriages'... I know my state Ohio does... and more states will pass them...

PiqueOil, ""Michele Bachmann, the Republican Representative from Minnesota, while speaking on a radio program at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, said the gay community has 'bullied the American people' and 'intimidated politicians.'""

"Michele Bachmann, the Republican Representative from Minnesota, while speaking on a radio program at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, said the gay community has 'bullied the American people' and 'intimidated politicians.'"

"I'm still against homosexuality addiction... keep it hidden behind closed doors/kill yourselves all off with AIDS and I don't have much problem with it... throw it up in my face everyday as something great and there's going to be problems..."

That pretty much describes my feelings toward some of those whose chosen lifestyle is to parade their sanctimonious indulgences in the realm of the occult in the public square. Feel free to indulge all you wish in your private sanctuaries, but don't proselytize your world views in my face.

"If your religion requires you to avoid visual contact with signs of affection that might or might not be precursors to illicit sexual activities, don't get a job as a cabbie, don't get a job as a clerk at a motel, don't work in the television or film industries (and certainly don't view any of their products), and so on."

Cannot argue with it. If you have an aversion to certain lifestyles it is just as much on you to avoid putting yourself in a job that will offend you.

. I'm not religion addicted in the slightest, but I'm still against homosexuality addiction... keep it hidden behind closed doors/kill yourselves all off with AIDS and I don't have much problem with it... throw it up in my face everyday as something great and there's going to be problems...

. If someone has a public place of business, they have to serve everyone equally (who behaves properly) who walks in the door... if someone delivers a service to another location not under their control, they have the right to pick and choose where they go/refuse the business...

"In fact, if a person's religious beliefs are so profound, they might be compelled by their god to avoid contact with all humans. From what I'm told, every single person is a sinner according to the tenets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. "

Ahhh yes, the extremist characterization of what people of faith should be 'compelled by their god' to do from the extremist left.

QUOTE ::::Perhaps if both women are femmes. But many may find a butch/butch or butch/femme couple considerably less appealing to watch play kissy face.::::

I hang out sometimes in a local car repair garage with my hommies. Occasionally a woman will stroll by the front doors. I have to jump out of the way or else be trampled in the stampede to the windows to oogle the lady.

I use the term 'lady' loosely. They technically qualify as females of the species, yes. Neither butch nor femmme. Tanker would be a better adjective. Often massive, scroungy, sloppy. Yet the home boys go nuts. Go figure. I'll wager they would like to see a couple of these tanks play kissy face.

If your religion requires you to avoid visual contact with signs of affection that might or might not be precursors to illicit sexual activities, don't get a job as a cabbie, don't get a job as a clerk at a motel, don't work in the television or film industries (and certainly don't view any of their products), and so on.

In fact, if a person's religious beliefs are so profound, they might be compelled by their god to avoid contact with all humans. From what I'm told, every single person is a sinner according to the tenets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

Being somewhat familiar with the male of the species, (being one), I find it hard to believe that a male cab driver would not be a bit excited by a couple of lesbians snogging in the backseat of his cab. If there is one thing most guys like is when two ladies have a little bit of fun. Seems more likely he'd crash the cab by watching the rear view mirror instead of the road.

Wow! All of a sudden one of our most judgmental posters shys away from making any judgements. Of course many of today's imagined scenarios are destined to become tomorrow's realities. This is where the power of foresight comes into play.

They were not imaginary cases PiqueOil. The cabbies did in fact refuse to carry certain passengers based on their religious beliefs did they not?

According to Fox News the case of the muslim truck drivers did happen adn the case went to either the NLRB or a court (I forgot what exactly they said but I think it was the NLRB) and the truck drivers were reinstated against the will of the trucking company.

But to imaginary cases - we could go on for a long time - but the concept remains - where does your right to practice your beliefs (regardless of what they are) start and stop when it conflicts with my beliefs.

Are you in fact acting like a bigot in this instance? Why should you demand that others accept your beliefs?

I have no interest in pretending to issue rulings on your imaginary cases.

Note: the Muslim cab drivers who were refusing some passengers were here in Minneapolis, not in New York. Their rejections of passengers ended years ago.

They were claiming they should be able to refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol and other items. Their claims were quickly rejected by the airport authority here and the cabbies faced the prospect of losing their taxi licenses (and their jobs as cabbies) if they didn't back down and agree to take all passengers.

Hey AFSNCO - if you wish to get married (or in your case celebrate your 25 anniversary) does this mean if yo walk into a jewish deli and ask them to cater it they must do so - even if you demand bacon wrapped shrimp appetizers. How about if its a Muslim deli.

Better yet if a muslim is a truck driver and he refuses to carry a load of liquor to a destination can he be fired for not doing his job. Now he doesnt have to drink it or touch it - just drive the truck with a semi load hitched to the back of it from point A to point B. There was a case like that and the trucking company fired them for refusal to do their job - it went to court and the court said the company had to reinstate them.

Does that make the muslims bigots? Or was the company a bigot for expecting its employees to do their job?

I wonder if NYC cabbies will be able to continue to refuse to carry passengers holding a bottle of booze based on religious grounds?

I wonder what PiqueOil will rule on these cases. This should get interesting.....

"Excellent questions SE 3.5! Where does it stop? Unfortunately, it seems that political correctness determines where it stops, and doesn't stop, rather than some specific rule of law."

Those are some excellent questions and I noticed they have been avoided. I think if you walked into a bakery in south Montgomery and asked them to make a cake to celebrate the KKK they would refuse. Would that mean that they are being bigots or does it mean they just do not agree with the message of the KKK?

As I said earlier, I see the point of protecting people and we probably need some type of law to protect them. It just has to be carefully written to protect everyone and limit possible abuses.

I asked some question on this topic a few days ago and have had no response - PiqueOil here you go ---..."Message Posted: Feb 26, 2014 2:17:20 PM Ignore flyboyUT Report Abuse

Then let me toss another log or two on the fire.

If we say that one cannot deny services to someone based on their religious beliefs or different ones or the total lack thereof how about this.

Dr. Jones performs abortions at a local clinic. He applies to a religious based hospital for employment or the right to practice there (whatever the term is). Can the hospital say that he doesn't meet their moral code and turn him down?

Another twist. A lady comes up to the hospital and demands an abortion. Can the hospital say they dont do those as its against our beliefs?

Can a doctor refuse to perform an abortion in a hospital that does them because he thinks performing abortions without just cause, IE to save the life of the mother, is murder to him.

How about this one ----- A clinic that specializes in assisting rape victims refuses to hire a notorious sexual predator. He has served his jail time and probation and the state says he is 'cured'. Does the clinic have the right to refuse him employment based on the feeling that their customers wont like to be touched by him? "

Where does the right of the individual not to conflict with their religion stop? At what point does someone elses rights supersede the rights of others?

SE 3.5: "NO. SHOULD a black baker be required to decorate a birthday cake with the "stars and bars"? Should a Jewish baker be required to decorate a birthday cake with a swastika? Should a Muslim baker be required to decorate a birthday cake with a pig?"

Excellent questions SE 3.5! Where does it stop? Unfortunately, it seems that political correctness determines where it stops, and doesn't stop, rather than some specific rule of law.

I have not read every post on the 4 pages of this topic, so forgive me if I am repeating something someone els posted.

Pique said, "The bottom-line question: . . . Should government force businessowners to sell products and services to gays or blacks or Muslims or liberals or Christians or Mormons or women (or any other group) if the owners simply prefer not to do business with them?"

NO. SHOULD a black baker be required to decorate a birthday cake with the "stars and bars"? Should a Jewish baker be required to decorate a birthday cake with a swastika? Should a Muslim baker be required to decorate a birthday cake with a pig? After all they are JUST cakes. It is JUST icing.

According to Politico: "The corporate community’s engagement in the fight over S.B. 1062 was overpowering: American Express wrote to Brewer on Tuesday asking her to veto the law, according to a spokesman for the credit card company, which has a large presence in the state. JPMorgan, with its 11,000-odd employees in Arizona, said on Wednesday that the legislation 'does not reflect the values of our country or the State of Arizona and should be vetoed.' The national bank Wells Fargo also opposed it, along with Apple, Marriott and other big corporations with significant Arizona-based investments."

"Most people are not so silly as to spoil their wedding by trying to sue somebody to force them against their will to be a part of their wedding."

As Norm has already pointed out it has happened and will continue to happen just to make a political point. Even if the business owner wins a lawsuit, what is the cost?

Off topic and I do not want it to go down this road but it is very similar to the "official language" discussion. If we declare an official language it is in no way to keep people from speaking another language but just to protect a business, or even a government entity, from being sued for not providing information in some other language.

Of course laws like either of them would have to be carefully written to avoid abuse.